samoqalaqo sazogadoeba - Center for Social Sciences

LECTURE 8. HABERMAS: STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION
OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE
This work by Habermas is both important for understanding present-day discursive approaches to
civil society concept, and difficult to read for students. That’s why this lecture provides students
with the story of content of this book, with the emphasize on the key problems. Habermas wrote
this book in a context of recently democratized Germany, and this work is his way of addressing
the same problem, which is familiar for third wave democracies – overload with the political
discursive ethics, while two other ethics (liberal and republican) are weak and manipulated.
Public sphere in a realm of letters and public political sphere of bourgeoisie civil society are those
realms, in which two social roles of man – private person and a citizen – are linked to their liberal
and republican versions. Emergence of the third social role of the man – voter – transforms the first
two, creates one-dimensional mass society (instead of civil one) and brings to the fore non-public
opinion, which is most important for ruling elites and is heavily manipulated by politicians.
Democracy, according to the Habermas, can only be liberal constitutional democracy, if everybody
has equal access to public deliberation. Participation in voting is not enough for this. But does
modern mass media provide citizens with the adequate means of such participation? Habermass is
pessimistic about it, and this pessimism is very much reflecting feelings of Georgian society,
concerned with the strong politization of media.
Literature:
Habermas J. 1994. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category
of Bourgeois Society. N.Y.
(ed. C. Calhoun), Habermas and the Public Sphere, The MIT Press, 1994
Simone Chambers. A critical theory of civil society, in: Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society,
Princeton University Press, 2002, pp90-112
LECTURES 9-10. CIVIL SOCIETY IN GEORGIA
a. Non-governmental organizations. First part of lecture concentrates on newly established NGOs
and their institutional arrangement. The question is asked – are they civil society institutions?
Answer is not unanimous, because during the period of 15 years of development, these institutions
developed as a narrow, strategically acting exclusive establishments, rather than open, inclusive,
mass membership oriented organizations. This is linked to the strong politization of society, which
is oppositional to any government, rather than independent from it. So all institutions, produced by
this society (NGOs and Mass Media), tend to play role of political opposition, rather than civic
initiative.
b. Discursive ethics: is this social movement? Other way to think of Georgian NGOs is to study
dynamics of their development. This approach leads us to a conclusion, that they can better be
described in terms of social movements. During 15 years the sector underwent three-stage
development. Each stage was based on specific discursive ethics, and matched with the
correspondent structure of funding from donor organizations. First was grassroots stage of mass
mobilization. This was followed with the development of professional, expert narrow groups. And,
finally, the movement ended up in politics, having crucial input in a “Rose revolution”. All these
resemble dynamics of modern social movements, rather than institutionalized civil society.
c. Dominant of pluralist: critical vision of Georgian civil society. Formed as a part of transitional
paradigm, current NGOs are part of global civil society, and base on one ideology of transition,
rather than reflect free flow of ideas, existing in Georgian society. Being product of international
assistance, they can only be reflecting one – liberal discursive ethics, while republican ethics is
118